Buff, NY NOMINATIONS FOR DIPLOMAT - deadline APRIL 23

As discussed at the meeting held April 16, there will be a new election for Diplomats to fulfill the remainder of the 2016 term.

The role of the Diplomats: Elected To One Year Terms
1.) Serve as a problem solver for major group issues
2.) Will only be called upon in times of need or when a major rule has been broken
3.) Serves as a back-up to the Fan-Force City Representative when dealing with sensitive issues
4.) To have reasonable access to respond in a timely manner
5.) Keep ongoing communication with other elected diplomats
6.) To act as a grow when called upon
7.) (Proposed amendment) “No two members of the same household can serve as active Diplomats for the same calendar term”.


The Nomination process will be open for one week, through APRIL 24. A nominee must accept the nomination in order to be eligible.

The Voting process will open for one week, April 25 - May 2. A new thread will be started for Voting, and Chris S. has volunteered to tally votes.

In order to be eligible to vote, you must be an active member AND have paid your one time dues. Please contact our Treasurers if you are uncertain if you have met these requirements.

 

I nominate Gil Guemes for the office of Diplomat.

 

I nominate Chris Ballard for Diplomat.

 

I nominate Tom Schobert for office of Diplomat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

6.) To act as a grow when called upon

Should "Grow" be Group?

 

Yes, as you've already mentioned. Unfortunately I cannot go back and edit the original post.

 

I nominate Kathleen Weber as a diplomat.

 

Reminder: only active members of the North Ridge can participate in the process.

 

I nominate Beckie Reynolds as Diplomat.

 

Thank you, Peter. I appreciate this nomination, but at this time must respectfully decline.

 

I nominate Kathleen Weber as a diplomat.

 

I second Beckie's nomination.

 

Larry nominates Janice for Diplomat.

 

I nominate Marty for Diplomat.

 

Do we need to be seconded?

I respectfully accept my nomination for Diplomat.

 

I don't know, but since it was the person I was going to nominate, I figured I'd concur with the nomination. That's all.

 

Just to clarify please, if one member of a household is president or vp, based on what we discussed on Saturday, it would lend it self that the other person could not serve as a diplomat....correct? Would seem to present the same issues.

 

The only amendment to the By-laws that was proposed was in reference to two Diplomats in the same household. We did not discuss other positions.

We can discuss this at the next meeting, however, for the sake of this election at hand, I would recommend for members to vote their conscience, with the best interest of the group in mind.

 

Just my 2 cents, and I may be displaying my lack of knowledge of details of the By-Laws...but I think it's two separate issues. From what I gleaned from the group discussion, the Diplmats serve as an organizational body to review an issue brought before them and then to vote on a resolution to said issue. My understanding is that the other officers (Prez, VP, Sec. & Treas.) are not part of this review/deliberative process. Therefore, it would appear that the same concerns that led to this proposed By-Law amendment would not apply.

 

I think the concern is that if there is an issue with the President or Vice President, that has to go before the Diplomats, there would obviously be a conflict of interest, should a Diplomat and E-board member be in the same household.

 

Yes, I see your point. That would be a valid concern.

 

The suggestion has been raised on the President nomination thread to delay the nomination and voting process for diplomats until after the voting for President is complete. This would be to determine if there is a potential conflict of having a Diplomat and a Board member in the same household.

Does anyone have an objection with delaying the Diplomats vote until after the President vote has been tallied and announced? We can address this as
Bylaws amendment at a later time.

 

this sounds good to me.

 

That sounds great.

 

I agree